Comments

“I demand you express all due respect for the former President of the United States of America”

You can ‘demand’ whatever the hell you like, Berendaneke, but I won’t comply. Bush, like many of his predecessors and Obama, are war criminals. The Pentagon-White House-corporate-bank cabal are all working together to promote the Washington Consensus and its attendant free market absolutism and nakedly predatory capitalism – policies aimed at subjugating the capital of other countries, nullifying alternative and more human/equitable systems and outright expansionism. Just because the corporate/state media is part of this and mass produces ignorance doesn’t mean I have to swallow. it.

So, Berendaneke, you can piss off with your ‘demands’. Go jump in the lake, you shallow moron.

Freddiot @43#97: OK, that has to be a Poe. “All due respect for” GWB? Other than novelty toilet paper, I can’t think of a more appropriate fate for him (and Darth Cheyney) than to have Freddiot as a supporter.

It’s not the sun. It’s not clouds. It’s not the moons of Jupiter. It’s not “lags”. It’s not the torched flatus of vengeful pinnipeds bent on the destruction of mankind at any cost. It’s not weather and it’s not ENSO!

One final point with respect to Berendaneke’s, ““I demand you express all due respect for the former President of the United States of America” and I’ll leave it at that…

Try asking the hundreds of thousands of victims of US wars and proxy wars under Bush to express their ‘due respect’. But of course they can’t – they’ve either been blown to smithereens by cruise missiles or cluster bombs, have died horrifically slow deaths from the effects of depleted uranium, or died from malnutrition or disease as a result of US economic policies.

So again, Berendaneke, you are in no position to make demands. Go stink up one of your far-right blogs and leave this one alone.

So this site is supposed to be a forum that discusses science and the environment.
So far all I have observed is politics and crude character assassinations.
Craig? What does someone’s age have to do with their expertise and what is wrong with an economist speaking about economics?
It is possible to dismiss people like Flannery, Cook, Gore and Lewandowsky in exactly the same way you have dismissed Singer and Ergas.
That would not prove anything about anything scientific or political or environmental either.
& rhwombat? A warm day in Adelaide in September is just weather isn’t it? If nothing else, climate science has been very clear that there is a difference between weather and climate hasn’t it?
It’s likely to get cold in Adelaide in September too. It’s still just weather.
& why is this still an August thread?

So this site is supposed to be a forum that discusses science and the environment.

Well, more precisely it’s supposed to discuss (bad) media reporting and politically motivated misuse and misrepresentation of science, but close enough.

So far all I have observed is politics and crude character assassinations.

Well, (a) there’s an election on, (b) much of climate science denial is politically motivated, (c) you’ve cited at least one person who has been proven to routinely make unreliable arguments, and who almost entirely relies on making their arguments outside of the peer-reviewed literature now (in large part because he knows that they won’t survive peer review, whether before or after publication, and because his aim is not to affect scientific understanding but to influence politics and policy).

It is possible to dismiss people like Flannery, Cook, Gore and Lewandowsky in exactly the same way you have dismissed Singer and Ergas.

Not exactly.

Flannery and Gore are certainly not climate scientists. However they both mostly present the current understanding of the climate science community – and yes, they both sometime get it wrong when doing so (and are and should be called on it when it happens). But they’re both far closer to what the science says than all of the contrarians put together. Furthermore, the case for concern provided by climate science does not rely on anything either of those guys says. It existence is independent of their statements.

Lewandowsky is an expert in his field, and as far as I know does not act as a paid PR shill for industry. If he’s talking about his field, then you can’t dismiss him in the same way. Which then means that you need to rebut his argument if you are so inclined.

It depends in what field you are trying to dismiss Cook. If you’re trying to dismiss the whole of the Skeptical Science website as so many contrarians wish to do, it’s the argument and evidence presented that count, not “John Cook said it”. Argue the evidence, not the Fallacy of Argument From Authority. If you’re talking about solar physics, that’s his postgraduate topic, so…

…why is this still an August thread?

The blog owner has had very little time for the blog for quite some time now. New monthly threads are quite often several days late.

You just said interested in responses, so my response is:
1. Hollow posturing by an out of work actor who knows there is a buck to be made in bagging out the government, any government. Note that no practising experts are cited in the video.
2. Hollow posturing by unqualified faux-experts on something that is little more than a denialist meme. Note that no practising experts are cited in the article.

If you have more specific questions I, or others here, will do our best to engage, subject always to the good faith rider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curryhttp://curry.eas.gatech.edu/
Well no actually Lotharsson, it appears that Judith Curry does have plenty of credibility and is regarded as competent.
She appears to be more highly regarded in the climate field than Tamino aka Grant Foster who also is a blogger anyway and seems to have less published work than Curry?http://tamino.wordpress.com/
I did intend to imply that Cook, Lewandowsky, Flannery etc are bad people or that they don’t possess any qualifications, I was just pointing out that Craig’s response (and now Frank’s) were not really a response to either of those links they just were character assassinations. The others that you’re now defending have had their character’s assassinated too. It doesn’t prove anything.
I agree with you that none of these people mentioned are always correct or conversely always incorrect.
BBD, you have linked to a media release unless I did miss a specific published science paper in regard to Australia’s weather in 2013?

His video above illustrates a little appreciated truth about the science of climate change – that it comes not from models or computers, but from millions of accumulated data points, acquired through slow, disciplined, and (trust me on this) physically demanding effort on the part of researchers willing to spend lifetimes in that pursuit. This boots-on-the-ice type of science is what I hope my readers will appreciate more and more through this blog and the accompanying videos.

Do you see what it is about now, more than just models, although these latter can tell us much about how systems respond to varying inputs.

It is about collecting data which confirms the underpinning physics and chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curryhttp://curry.eas.gatech.edu/
Well no actually Lotharsson, it appears that Judith Curry does have plenty of credibility and is regarded as competent.
She appears to be more highly regarded in the climate field than Tamino aka Grant Foster who also is a blogger anyway and seems to have less published work than Curry?http://tamino.wordpress.com/
I didn’t intend to imply that Cook, Lewandowsky, Flannery etc are bad people or that they don’t possess any qualifications, I was just pointing out that Craig’s response (and now Frank’s) were not really a response to either of those links they just were character assassinations. The others that you’re now defending have had their character’s assassinated too. It doesn’t prove anything.
I agree with you that none of these people mentioned are always correct or conversely always incorrect.
BBD, you have linked to a media release unless I did miss a specific published science paper in regard to Australia’s weather in 2013?

Well no actually Lotharsson, it appears that Judith Curry does have plenty of credibility and is regarded as competent.

Well, no, Stu 2, when she blogs she does not have much credibility because she makes (and allows) dubious claims. Furthermore she doesn’t have much competence for that reason, and because she continues to make fairly basic errors, as a little bit of Internet research would demonstrate (and Tamino’s article appears to demonstrate). Her “Italian flag” metaphor is a classic early example, and she clung to it after it was demonstrated to be dodgy – a bad habit she appears to indulge in on the blog.

This is why I drew the distinction in my comment between her blogging and publications in peer reviewed journals. Especially since as far as I can see she routinely steps outside of her scope of professional competence on her blog.

She appears to be more highly regarded in the climate field than Tamino aka Grant Foster who also is a blogger anyway…

Tamino is a professional statistician with peer reviewed papers and academic books. On statistics it appears that he is far more competent than Curry, and statistical analysis is germane to large parts of climate science. Curry has particular expertise in one segment of climate science (although I think she hurt her own reputation a bit a while back with a paper that received strong pushback after publication for claiming more than the data supported).

I was just pointing out that Craig’s response (and now Frank’s) were not really a response to either of those links …

If you’re genuinely new here, you might not realise that we’ve seen LOADS of denialism over the years, almost all of it conducted in bad faith. Regulars are by and large tired of repeating that experience and have a fairly low tolerance for it now. Accordingly when someone new comes along and gives off the same vibes as all of those previous experiences, they tend to get a short-cut response.

If you’re genuinely new here and genuinely interested in a good faith discussion, persist a little longer so that your interactions can be seen to be of a different nature than the usual. Generally you’ll find that you’ll get a reasonable discussion, although the place is a lot less frequented than it used to be because the blog owner hasn’t posted much lately.

I was just pointing out that Craig’s response (and now Frank’s) were not really a response to either of those links they just were character assassinations.

You asked for a response and you got it. You cannot seriously expect a substantive deconstruction of a 9.5 minute movie that fits into a blog comment. What specifically interested you about it that you felt it worth linking to here?

As to the article you linked to, I gave it the attention it warranted. It is entirely substance-free. Let me see if I’ve parsed it correctly:
Some unnamed people want something that is not happening to be discussed at a conference next month, because if it was happening it would be a reason not to do something that we are not doing anyway (panicking). People who actually know about the subject declined to comment. A non-expert adduced several factoids which were pointed out to be inconsequential by people with more domain expertise.

Did I get that right? Oh and Stu, if I didn’t, raising substantive issues will be taken as good faith. Fishing with tone trolling chum will be seen for what it is.

So child neglecting BBD seems to be able to post with the living high on the hog Deltoids. Meanwhile the thought police and perimeter have made the place Service Unavailable. Most comments going into moderation.

Fucking hypocrites living their nice little cozy cossetted lives while wasting their living blog sooking about imaginary problems. Watermelons and commies. Get a real job you layabouts.

“If you’re genuinely new here and genuinely interested in a good faith discussion” hahahahahaha

If you’re new here realise the perimeter guards are simply cunts – they won’t attempt to answer your questions, They’ll appeal to authority and label you a denier. Followed by verballing and all sorts of assumptions about you. Good faith discussions mean you essentially must agree. You must believe in the coming apocalypse.

You previously admitted – grudgingly – that this term has overtly racist connotations. Why are you using it again? This doesn’t look good. In fact I’m going to have to upgrade you from plain thug to racist thug if you keep it up!

Scroll down to the last graph. Credibility my foot.
Exactly, that is why I mentioned the torpedo (doing a Trinidad). Although it is more like she is running over her own mines having forgotten where she laid them.

Oh, here we go again. The same old bulls***. Luke is an ignoramus, and further reinforces that fact when he has to resort to these kinds of depths.

Climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists like Luke, Karen, Freddy etc. just can’t resist telling us what we already know: that they are trying to hide their far right libertarian affiliations behind a fake scientific wall. These clots don’t give a damn about scientific ‘truths’. Never have. But if they were to be honest just for once in their miserable lives, they’d admit that they hate science but find it necessary to take the road they have to provide cover for their political views.

Just stop with your BS “watermelon comments are racist” tripe. In this context, they aren’t. If southern blacks were being discussed, perhaps. But not the way it is used to define so-called “greens”. The commie red component isn’t racist, it’s a political jibe.

And speaking of political, since you have shown us all that the physical science of AGW is pretty much undeniable, perhaps you could use some of your valuable intellect, and time, discussing and suggesting reasonable and feasible solutions to the issue rather than banging your head against the proverbial wall with the lowest of the blogospheric low–on both *sides*–on endless, meaningless open threads. Just a suggestion. Shame to waste such talent. Unless, of course, this is all just a game for you. Which I suspect it is.

This is Jeff the bludging academic spending his life swanning around to conferences putting dodgy GCM input into dodgy species models and proclaiming the end of the world. Come and stand a post Jeff and shoot some feral cats if you’re serious. Shouldn’t you be protesting in front of a rainforest clearing bulldozer in Indonesia – why are you here.

As I said earlier – if watermelon offends you we can substitute lying cunt commie instead. Why would a fruit or analogy to green left politics be considered racist. Well we’ve already answered that haven’t we.

“The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.”

Well, it’s apparent that Stu 2 is obviously more linguistically competent than Mackulus now that the sample size has increased, but he’s either new to the game or starting in Chapter 1 of Denialism if his arguments are any indication.

Apart from that he seems rational though, which is more than can be said for Luke who has gone completely off the rails and now obviously inhabits his own hypocritical alternative reality.

‘All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling.

‘Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.’

de Freitas and McLean 2013

There are two things you should get your head around, El Gordo:

The current record heat is occurring despite us not being under any El Nino influence.

McLean predicted last year would be, “the coldest year since 1956″. Reality is diametrically opposite to McLean’s garbage.
Additionally, McLean is the guy who used to seem to be claiming to have a PhD, until he was caught out. He is some sort of IT technician with no relevant qualifications, and a history of fringe-published nonsense that has been shown to have been completely wrong by subsequent events and now spends his days polluting the pages of The Drum with his uneducated and utterly wrong opinions.

John McLean
John McLean is an Information Technology specialist who has made an intense study of climate matters since 2003. He brings skills in analysis and data processing to a data-intensive subject. His critical review of CSIRO climate reports, published in Energy & Environment, was a first for Australia and his analysis of the peer review of the latest IPCC assessment report has been raised in the US senate. His website http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm contains a number of articles about climate, with emphasis on data rather than opinion.

Oh, I missed this Luke gem the first time around. Thank you for quoting it, Gordo!

Good faith discussions mean you essentially must agree.

Good faith discussion means (for starters) not lying your stupid ass off over and over again, especially after you’ve been repeatedly exposed. Luke and Gordo, you both lie. Pathologically.

[doop-dee-doop-dee-doop]

Yep, for at least the past 8 pages (I only have so much time and patience), there are multiple instances of you lying. After being corrected. And these are “wow, let’s see, let me Google this, they wouldn’t say this if it weren’t t”—BANG, stupid, obvious, douchecanoe tripe.

Yep, this appears to be the state of play.

No sense of shame at all. Gordo, you lie about warming having stopped over and over. You think you saying so makes it true. You’re on the wrong wagon, Gordo.

Now, let’s go to Luke “I’m not pathetic, you are!” Clownshoe.

Only the child neglecting, blog-obsessed, living the high life, leech BBD

You forgot commie, cupcake. Or did you actually look it up this time and realize that was too fucking dumb even for you?

“Child-neglecting”: border-line libel that has been repeatedly refuted. Repeating it is childish, churlish, asinine and very, very sad.

“blog-obsessed”: simply looking at timestamps makes this a case of, all together now, IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION.

“living the high life, leech”: right up there with “how dare Al Gore have a big house”. Pathetic.

would think that watermelon was racist.

On the other hand, some people would realize the world extends beyond their own borders. Some people would not persist in using a racial stereotype AFTER IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO THEM REPEATEDLY. Other people would not be assholes on purpose. Listen, you jackass. “Jafa” doesn’t mean squat where I’m from, but I don’t use the term. It’s common courtesy. It’s that CIVILISED DISCOURSE you’re so big on. Which, of course, you’re actually not, because you’re a fucking liar.

This is Jeff the bludging academic spending his life swanning around to conferences

Wait, what? Didn’t you use to claim you were a practicing scientist? I might be confusing my trolls here.

Anyway, it seems like your main issue with scientists is that after working their asses of for two decades, they get a free trip every now and then? Childish, churlish jealousy is your main motivator? You truly are a sad, sad little man.

Maybe you should learn a trade, Luke. I’m just a code monkey and my boss pays for my week-long trips every six weeks or so. Have you ever considered the possibility that you’re just jealous because you simply suck at whatever the hell it is you do, Luke?

Wait, do you even have a job?

Come and stand a post Jeff and shoot some feral cats if you’re serious.

Yes, the field of ecology has yet failed to research the impact of invasive species. At all.

Is there a prize for making a complete ass out of yourself somewhere you’re shooting for?

Shouldn’t you be protesting in front of a rainforest clearing bulldozer in Indonesia – why are you here.

Why all this anger, sweetheart? Did someone fine you for setting your trailer on fire or something?

What is it dad?
Well, Johnny, I need to talk to you.
What about?
Well, I need to tell you something.
About what, dad?
Something about you.
What is it, dad?
Well, this guy on the Internet really pegged you for what you are.
What I am, daddy?
Yes, yes he did. He’s really smart.
How do you know, dad?
He said so.
Oh, okay then. So what am I dad?
Are you ready?
I guess so.
Sure?
Yes, dad.
Son, you are…….. NEGLECT.

Luke, you’re a fucking moron.

You said so yourself.

I will send you $100 of my own money if you can find a quote that even remotely implies such a thing, you idiotic pathological liar.

As I said earlier – if watermelon offends you we can substitute lying cunt commie instead.

Yes, sexism is much better. Also, I have to take back what I said earlier… you have no fucking clue what communism is, do you Luke? None. Same for Marxism, socialism… to you, it’s all “things someone told me are bad, so they are bad, so there”.

Your original (and I suspect actual) profile picture of a juggalo in his mom’s basement increases in explanatory power with every comment.

Why would a fruit or analogy to green left politics be considered racist.

Because it is. As has been explained to you. AS ANY FIVE MINUTE GOOGLE SEARCH WOULD TELL YOU. Not knowing why it is racist by now is A) Willful ignorance or B) An obvious and stupid lie. After this comment, B) is your only option left.

I almost forgot how epically WATB that entire site is. I mean, this is just… precious:

Not surprisingly our finding of a strong and sustained close relationship between time-lagged SOI and temperature upset a few people. One such person was Grant Foster (who hides behind the nom-de-web “Tamino”). Within days of the publishing of our paper he had written a criticism and posted it to his web page, and shortly thereafter it was posted with very few alterations but formatted in the style of the journal on the web pages of Kevin Trenberth. Foster was the principal author but now J.D. Annan, P.D. Jones, M.E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G.A. Schmidt and K.E. Trenberth were also claiming to be authors.

I mean, forget the bucket of Fox-style implicating weasel claptrap. The implied conspiracy, the twelve stages of denialist victimhood, and my personal favorite “WITHIN DAYS”. Think about what that means. I don’t even think they’re trying to imply additional conspiracy here, I truly think they cannot possibly fathom how a professional statistician can take a random rainy afternoon and shoot big, loud, gaping holes in this precious thesis [sniiiiiiirk] that took them months to put together.

Just so the resident dills on this site (looking at you Lukes, Gordo, Karen) have the opportunity to demonstrate that they don’t understand the notion of cherry picking yet again, the following from News.com.

NEW Zealand basked in its warmest winter on record, with South Islanders in particular being warmed well above the norm.
Despite a cold snap from June 19-21 which brought snow to much of the South Island and winds which wreaked havoc in Wellington, the rest of the winter was a warm one, the national climate research body Niwa says.
Nationally the mean temperature was 9.5C, 1.2C above the winter average, based on Niwa’s seven station temperature series measurement method, which began in 1909.
This was 0.3 degrees warmer than the previous warmest winter of 1984, making it the warmest on record by a considerable margin.
Temperatures were particularly high in Southland, Otago, inland Canterbury, coastal Canterbury north of Ashburton, and isolated parts of the lower half of the North Island.
Several places in the South Island had mean temperatures more than 1.5C higher than average, with Gore a whopping 2.2C above average.
In the main centres, temperatures were well above average in Christchurch and Dunedin, above average in Wellington and Tauranga, and about average in Auckland and Hamilton.

It’s amazing how vehemently determined the Luke DuKE Collective is in demonstrating that they are arguing in bad faith. I’d like to thank them for stepping it up a level and making it obvious to everyone with just slightly higher comprehension and cognitive abilities than el gordo – who himself pushes out a false definition of “good faith” because he can’t accept what the real definition implies.

Warming of various kinds, seasonal, climatic, storm/monsoon weather patterns moving around isn’t like cooking. It doesn’t start somewhere, like close to the flame, and move into the rest of the contents of the stockpot for as long as the flame is on.

Are you sure you’re not falling for the rather empty notion that global warming means that always and everywhere the temperature should be increasing – setting a new high record – for each and every day of the year? And if that’s not happening always and everywhere, then it’s not happening at all?

As for “regional” in Australia. We have several distinct climate regions here. If it gets to 41C in Adelaide, there’s no good reason to think that will automatically relate to conditions in Brisbane or Perth. Even when it’s the same weather system, the impact of a stream of moist, coolish air from the east over Brisbane can become a hellish hot dry dusty wind if it does an anti-clockwise sweep across thousands of kms of desert to send Adelaide residents indoors.

What has happened to deltoid?
I can remember visiting this site in the past and being able to read some solid debate. It was sponsored by National Geographic then.
All I see now is character assassination, personal attacks personal abuse and attempts at character assessment of me or other commenters or character judgement of others or character comparison of me or others by sample size courtesy of comments like Bernard’s.
Stu’s contribution @#32 being one excellent example but only one of many.
I am sure that Judith Curry does not care much about your assessment Stu:
” No, she is not. She’s a lying shill, and a stupid one at that.”
I think she is about as publicly credible as Tamino aka Grant Foster. They have both contributed correct and incorrect assessments. They both run blogs. They both work in academic institutions. They both have high level qualifications in their respective fields. Neither of them are stupid as a quick perusal of their respective careers and qualifications demonstrates.

Right on! Stu, ol’ buddy! I mean, like, this “watermelon”, ni-Clang, so-racist-it-makes-me-want-to-barf, right-wing-nutter “ideation” business is no laughing matter–let me tell you! I mean, like, it’s infecting the whole HUMAN RACE!, even as we speak!!!!

I mean, like, I “googled” the terms “watermelon wiki”, and you’re not even going to begin to believe the horror-story wiki-entry that came up! Under the seemingly innocent heading of watermelon-related “Cultural references”, I got this:

-“In Vietnamese culture, watermelon seeds are consumed during the Vietnamese New Year, Tet, as a snack.” I mean, like, talk about ni-Clang up the wazoo, and all! I mean, like, these hard-core, VC, “scientific-socialists” who claim “History” as their ally and all, aren’t just racially “offensive”in the ordinary “watermelon” sense of the term–NOOOO!–they’re “TET OFFENSIVE!!!”

-“The Oklahoma State Senate passed a bill on 17 April 2007 declaring watermelon as the official state fruit, with some controversy over whether a watermelon is a vegetable or a fruit.” Think Senator Inhofe!!!–Senator from Oklahoma–right? Do I need to say more?

-“The citruline in watermelon (especially in the rind) is a known stimulator of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is thought to relax and expand blood vessels, much like the erectile dysfunction drug Viagra, and may even increase libido.” Wow! Something so head-spinningly offensive as this appearing in a Wiki-entry, no less?!!! I mean, like, you don’t have to be a hive-trained, PC-gotcha! enviro-ninja to spot the thin, Lysenkoist veneer of “scientific respectability” used here to dress up this apalling bit of of ni-Clang, watermelon-racism “ideation”. I mean, like, talk about the ultimate in sexually-threatened, teeny-tiny-weenie, can’t-get-a-date, mummy-obsessed, privileged-white-dork bigot-fantasies (shame on you Deltoids!) aimed at falsely and maliciously attributing the parntner-choices of so many of the shockingly uninhibited hive-babes to some mythical and repellent stereotype of the hyper-sexed black-stud!

-“[watermelon] is the symbol of the Turkish city, Diyarbakar.” Yes! the germ of “watermelon-racism” has spread to even the Middle East!

-And then there’s the truly sorry case of Canada. I mean, like, I’m super-sized shocked–SHOCKED!–at this part of the wiki entry. “Fans of the Saskatchewan Rough Riders of the CFL started a tradition of hollowing out a watermelon and wearing it as a makeshift football helmet.” Can totally-out-of-control, ni-Clang-to-the-max, “watermelon-racism” ideations get any worse than this?

-And then, finally, there’s this one: “Stereotypical caricatures may depict African Americans as being inordinately fond of eating watermelons”. And of all the “Cultural references” that invoke watermelons, this last is the hive’s preference. Why? Obvious, isn’t it, Deltoids? The “watermelon” epithet that’s been so neatly affixed to you lefty greenshirts (green on the outside, red on the inside) really stings. Right, guys? And so you’ve come up with that little, “watermelon-racism” canard of yours as your sad, truly pathetic, agit-prop, back-chat stratagem, desperately hoping it will deprive your detractors of their “watermelon” truth-prod that makes you little hive-bozos so wince. You know, like, how you guys are attempting to equate “watermelon” references to you lefty nerd-pukes with racist stereotyping–and to hell with how improbable, forced, unconvincing, and transparently humbug the whole propaganda flim-flam of the “meme” might be.

Sorry, guys. “Watermelons” you are, and “WATERMELONS” you’ll remain–green on the outside and red on the inside!

Enough said, really. Luke is a complete raving idiot. In his myopic little world, this is ‘objective’ discourse. In academia he’s be tarred, feathered, and thrown out. He’d be a laughingstock. His ‘science’ has already been demolished here. When confronted with new facts, he dismisses them and ignores dozens of empirical studies. Witness his initial response to the Nature Climate Change article on ocean acidification, which was to dismiss it out of hand for lacking evidence. When other posters provided links to many other studies providing that evidence, he switched from chest pounding to casual dismissal to, eventually, silence on the issue.

Luke’s a hollow vessel. But he is a classic example of the climate change deniers I’ve encountered on Deltoid over the past 10 years. They all greatly over-estimate their scientific qualifications and expertise. Every single one of them. No exceptions. Not a single one of them is, in fact, a scientists with any standing in any field. They all resort to invective-laden sears when called out.

Luke’s just par for the course. He demands to be heard, and believes he’s some kind of scientific guru. Truth is, he’s a schmuck.

Adelady, that’s a brief but fair summary of Australian weather patterns and their influences. Especially how Adelaide’s weather can differ greatly from somewhere like Brisbane, even though they may be under the influence of the same high pressure system.
I’m not as impressed about anything in regard to your happening or not happening comments.

Adelady, that’s a brief but fair summary of Australian weather patterns and their influences. Especially how Adelaide’s weather can differ greatly from somewhere like Brisbane, even though they may be under the influence of the same high pressure system.
I’m not as impressed about anything in regard to your happening or not happening comments.

I am sure that Judith Curry does not care much about your assessment Stu:
” No, she is not. She’s a lying shill, and a stupid one at that.”
I think she is about as publicly credible as Tamino aka Grant Foster.

Then either you haven’t read much of what goes on on her blog, or you aren’t any good at assessing what is or is not credible.

She recently gave a platform for Craig Idso’s lies. I haven’t bothered going back.

“Did you know that my qualifications in climate syense are the same as yours sweety”

Two replies: First, your qualifications in environmental science are nowhere close to mine – and this is where the effects of GW are being manifested.

Second, your qualifications don’t come anywhere close to the vast majority of climate scientists who broadly agree that humans are the main drivers of the recent warming. Which makes me wonder how a total neophyte like you possesses the acumen to understand a field in which you have precisely zero pedigree. All I am doing is deferring to the views of the bulk of the climate science community. You and the other deniers here are bucking the trend. If you were properly trained I would be more inclined to listen, but you aren’t.

When you pasted that Youtube video of Green Party meeting in Australia as evidence of a global left wing conspiracy, it told me exactly where you were coming from, Karen. Like Luke and the others, you cannot refrain from letting slip this paranoid fear that climate science is some vast left-wing conspiracy. Truth is, you’re bonkers. You, Luke, Freddy et al. would be at home in a Tea Party platform. Go there are spew out your lies and hysteria. Not here.

I am sure that Judith Curry does not care much about your assessment Stu:

As Curry’s (politically convenient) hobbyhorse of uncertainty has become her (politically convenient) sole interest over the past five years, her relevance in the field has decreased, as if it hadn’t been considered previously. Her last lead authored paper was seven years ago.

She’s pursuing a (politically convenient) dead end. Science advances by teasing out what can be known, not collecting up bundles of ‘uncertainty’. Nor does it advance by cosying up to the fringe nutters previously mentioned, and adopting similare paranoid views herself.

“Sooooo JeFfErY, I repeat, “my qualifications in climate syense are the same as yours sweety”

Read the rest of my post, sunshine…, the inconvenient little bit where I juxtaposed your qualifications (zero) with the bulk of the climate science community who agree that humans are the main drivers of GW.

As I said, why would a complete neophyte hold views that run counter to the scientific mainstream? I explained why, above. It has nix to do with science, of course, since you are a know-nothing, and everything to do with politics and economics, of which your views concur with those on the far end of the political right.

Fucking Jeff off on another interminable long rant being towed around in my wake. You’re such a shit cunt Jeff – really mate – just fuck off. 10 years here eh? you sad fuck.

“Enough said, really. Luke is a complete raving idiot.”

TRUE but is he/she/it wrong !?

“His ‘science’ has already been demolished here.” HAHAHAHAHAA must have missed it.

“When confronted with new facts, he dismisses them” Oh I thought that’s what Doltoid cunts were doing?! My bad.

“Witness his initial response to the Nature Climate Change article on ocean acidification, which was to dismiss it out of hand for lacking evidence. When other posters provided links to many other studies providing that evidence, he switched from chest pounding to casual dismissal to, eventually, silence on the issue.” mate the blog is fucked – you can’t post, and and unlike you fuckersI have work to do – I can’t be camped out here 24×7

“But he is a classic example of the climate change deniers I’ve encountered on Deltoid over the past 10 years.” NOT A FUCKING DENIER – fuck off Jeff. Stop verballing me.

” They all greatly over-estimate their scientific qualifications and expertise.” DIDN’T SAY I HAD ANY

“They all resort to invective-laden sears when called out.” AND DELTOIDS NEVER DO THAT !

“Luke’s just par for the course.” TRUE

“He demands to be heard,” well you cunt are writing tomes as I tow you around the swamp “but but but but” what whiney lil’ bitches. Just shut up.

“and believes he’s some kind of scientific guru.” Not REALLY but I am pretty fucking awesome.

” Truth is, he’s a schmuck.” TRUE. Some would have said a hard cunt actually.

Now on acidification it’s all modelly shit like the supplement to the classic (for some cunts) Sabine et al “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2″ 2004 – well the supplement shows how assumptive it all is – and I as I don’t know my alkalinity from my DIC – well you get the import (or you’re a dumb fuck).

And BBD I’m sure young Johnny is just fine – stop swinging at sledges – most of the time I’m only taking the piss out of you sour as fuck watermelons. or perhaps rastus chocolate drops – oh shit – sin ! Get over it. We can do white Aussie vs NZ jokes if it makes you happy. But is was only 23:30 hours – hahahahahahaha – who gives a fuck. It’s like you’re apologising to the headmaster. Stop it !

You’re all so prissy – anyway – answer my questions. You can’t. So now get over yourselves.

In the comments Sou knocks the denier bogs into a batting order with Nova fit only to sit on the bench.

Some excellent articles over at Sou’s Hot Whopper where in the latest he makes a case for Watts joining Nova on that bench by his promotion of complete nuttery of a similar ilk to what we have recently seen from our suspects here.

What is this nuttery, put all drinks well out of reach before proceeding further, well here is a sample in ‘Anthony Watts thinks it’s April the first at WUWT!:

{quote}
“This is hilarious if you’re into black humour. Anthony Watts has posted yet another article (archived here) protesting the 97% consensus. What is it now, is anyone counting?

They didn’t ask if it was dangerous!

Here is an excerpt:

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

Bloody hell! What does he think? That 97% of scientists who’ve attributed global warming to human activity, that warn of what will happen if we keep doing it, that already are observing Russian heatwaves and Angry Summers and acidifying oceans and signs of the sixth major extinction event and have been warning people for decades about what we can expect – and they are warning the world just for kicks?

What a bunch of utter nutters!”
{end quote}

But do go read the full article as it tells us much about how the denier brigade work – deviously. But then most of us know this already.

Other articles on ENSO & global surface temperatures plus a couple of shake-ups of Topher Field (50-1) the second over Monckton. Then there is the topical ‘The Angry Year: Australia’s hottest 12 months on record‘ article.

The South African Weather Service reported a low temperature of -19.5°C (-3.1°F) at Buffelsfontein on Friday August 23rd. If verified this would be the coldest temperature ever measured in the country.

The preliminary national weather extremes table for South Africa on Thursday-Friday August 22-23. Table from the South African Weather Service.

Bahia Blanca, Argentina, an all-time record for the month of August. This follows a reading of -7.9°C (17.8°F) recorded on August 25th, their all-time record low for the month! The site has a POR (period of record) of over 100 years. Their normal daily range of temperature during August is 9.2°C-16.0°C (49°F-61°F).
Meanwhile, a very rare snowfall accumulated in the high desert town of San Pedro de Atacama, Chile on August 25-26. Located at 2500 m (8,250’) it is not unusual for cold temperatures to be measured here, but precipitation is very rare (being in the Atacama Desert, driest region of the world) and snowfall even rarer. The last report of snow here was in 1983. Snow was also reported on the beaches near Viedma, Argentina (about 150 miles south of Bahia Blanca) on August 23-25. Again, this was a first since the early 1980s.

Global warming does not mean that everywhere is going to only show record high temperatures, every day. Neither does it rule out some places recording lower temperatures, that latter being in the nature of climate change.

What is happening is that average temperatures are rising there being more record highs than new lows and also a compression of the diurnal temperature difference. Think what that latter means!

As I recall it’s stronger than that. We expect some new low records as a result of global climate change. The fact that this is counter intuitive for many people doesn’t change the fact that it is expected.

Come now BBD, surely Luke isn’t lying! Might he not be merely obliquely pointing out that he misled his employer as to his qualifications on his job application, hence obtaining a position as a “working scientist” that he isn’t remotely qualified for?

Or perhaps that he has an awfully rich fantasy life? (Which would explain a lot, come to think of it…)